Baiyan Zhuang1, Shuli Wang1, Shihua Zhao2, Minjie Lu3. 1. Department of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Fuwai Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100037, China. 2. Department of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Fuwai Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100037, China. cjr.zhaoshihua@vip.163.com. 3. Department of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Fuwai Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100037, China. coolkan@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A method named computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) is an alternative method for detecting hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis. We carried out a meta-analysis to derive reliable assessment of the diagnostic performances of FFRCT and compare the diagnostic accuracy with CCTA using FFR as reference. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Web of science for relevant articles published from January 2008 until May 2019 using the following search terms: FFRCT, noninvasive FFR, non-invasive FFR, noninvasive fractional flow reserve, non-invasive fractional flow reserve, and CCTA. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC) were determined. RESULTS: Sixteen studies published between 2011 and 2019 were included with a total of 1852 patients and 2731 vessels. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for FFRCT at the per-patient level was 89% (95% CI, 85-92%) and 71% (95% CI, 61-80%), respectively, while on the per-vessel basis was 85% (95% CI, 82-88%) and 82% (95% CI, 75-87%), respectively. No apparent difference in the sensitivity at per-patient and per-vessel level between FFRCT and CCTA was observed (0.89 versus 0.93 at per-patient; 0.85 versus 0.88 at per-vessel). However, the specificity of FFRCT was higher than CCTA (0.71 versus 0.32 at per-patient analysis; 0.82 versus 0.46 at per-vessel analysis). CONCLUSIONS: FFRCT obtained a high diagnostic performance and is a viable alternative to FFR for detecting coronary ischemic lesions. KEY POINTS: • Noninvasive FFRCThas higher specificity for anatomical and physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis compared with CCTA. • Noninvasive FFRCTis a viable alternative to invasive FFR for the detection and exclusion of coronary lesions that cause ischemia.
OBJECTIVES: A method named computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) is an alternative method for detecting hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis. We carried out a meta-analysis to derive reliable assessment of the diagnostic performances of FFRCT and compare the diagnostic accuracy with CCTA using FFR as reference. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Web of science for relevant articles published from January 2008 until May 2019 using the following search terms: FFRCT, noninvasive FFR, non-invasive FFR, noninvasive fractional flow reserve, non-invasive fractional flow reserve, and CCTA. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC) were determined. RESULTS: Sixteen studies published between 2011 and 2019 were included with a total of 1852 patients and 2731 vessels. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for FFRCT at the per-patient level was 89% (95% CI, 85-92%) and 71% (95% CI, 61-80%), respectively, while on the per-vessel basis was 85% (95% CI, 82-88%) and 82% (95% CI, 75-87%), respectively. No apparent difference in the sensitivity at per-patient and per-vessel level between FFRCT and CCTA was observed (0.89 versus 0.93 at per-patient; 0.85 versus 0.88 at per-vessel). However, the specificity of FFRCT was higher than CCTA (0.71 versus 0.32 at per-patient analysis; 0.82 versus 0.46 at per-vessel analysis). CONCLUSIONS:FFRCT obtained a high diagnostic performance and is a viable alternative to FFR for detecting coronary ischemic lesions. KEY POINTS: • Noninvasive FFRCThas higher specificity for anatomical and physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis compared with CCTA. • Noninvasive FFRCTis a viable alternative to invasive FFR for the detection and exclusion of coronary lesions that cause ischemia.
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Wayne Rosamond; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Anne W S Rutjes; Rob J P M Scholten; Patrick M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: James K Min; Bon-Kwon Koo; Andrejs Erglis; Joon-Hyung Doh; David V Daniels; Sanda Jegere; Hyo-Soo Kim; Allison M Dunning; Tony Defrance; Alexandra Lansky; Jonathon Leipsic Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Panagiotis K Siogkas; Constantinos D Anagnostopoulos; Riccardo Liga; Themis P Exarchos; Antonis I Sakellarios; George Rigas; Arthur J H A Scholte; M I Papafaklis; Dimitra Loggitsi; Gualtiero Pelosi; Oberdan Parodi; Teemu Maaniitty; Lampros K Michalis; Juhani Knuuti; Danilo Neglia; Dimitrios I Fotiadis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bjarne L Nørgaard; Jonathon Leipsic; Sara Gaur; Sujith Seneviratne; Brian S Ko; Hiroshi Ito; Jesper M Jensen; Laura Mauri; Bernard De Bruyne; Hiram Bezerra; Kazuhiro Osawa; Mohamed Marwan; Christoph Naber; Andrejs Erglis; Seung-Jung Park; Evald H Christiansen; Anne Kaltoft; Jens F Lassen; Hans Erik Bøtker; Stephan Achenbach Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sara Gaur; Kristian Altern Øvrehus; Damini Dey; Jonathon Leipsic; Hans Erik Bøtker; Jesper Møller Jensen; Jagat Narula; Amir Ahmadi; Stephan Achenbach; Brian S Ko; Evald Høj Christiansen; Anne Kjer Kaltoft; Daniel S Berman; Hiram Bezerra; Jens Flensted Lassen; Bjarne Linde Nørgaard Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Maciej T Wybraniec; Paweł Bańka; Tomasz Bochenek; Tomasz Roleder; Katarzyna Mizia-Stec Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Yi Xue; Min Wen Zheng; Yang Hou; Fan Zhou; Jian Hua Li; Yi Ning Wang; Chun Yu Liu; Chang Sheng Zhou; Jia Yin Zhang; Meng Meng Yu; Bo Zhang; Dai Min Zhang; Yan Yi; Lei Xu; Xiu Hua Hu; Guang Ming Lu; Chun Xiang Tang; Long Jiang Zhang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fay M A Nous; Ricardo P J Budde; Marisa M Lubbers; Yuzo Yamasaki; Isabella Kardys; Tobias A Bruning; Jurgen M Akkerhuis; Marcel J M Kofflard; Bas Kietselaer; Tjebbe W Galema; Koen Nieman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Xingxing S Cheng; Suman Mohanty; Valery Turner; Domenico Mastrodicasa; Simon Winther; Dominik Fleischmann; Jane C Tan; William F Fearon Journal: Cardiorenal Med Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 4.360
Authors: Chris Boyd; Greg Brown; Timothy Kleinig; Joseph Dawson; Mark D McDonnell; Mark Jenkinson; Eva Bezak Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-03-19